Joyce's parents worked as grocers. He went to school at Francis Douglas Memorial College, before enrolling at Massey University, applying to study veterinary science. However he "missed the cut", graduating instead with a BSc in zoology. While at university he worked as a presenter and programme director on student radio. He also took eleven economics papers at Massey from 1984 to 1986 and failed eight of these through insufficient grade, withdrawal, or failure to complete.

Joyce's parents worked as grocers. He went to school at Francis Douglas Memorial College, before enrolling at Massey University, applying to study veterinary science. However he "missed the cut", graduating instead with a BSc in zoology. While at university he worked as a presenter and programme director on student radio. He also took eleven economics papers at Massey from 1984 to 1986 and failed eight of these through insufficient grade, withdrawal, or failure to complete.

It seems that wikipage vandalism becomes the new national sport on the leadup to elections. If you look at the page history you can see history of the changes.

I recall similar dodgy edits on Metiria Turei's page just as the news about her fraud broke. Some of the info was quiet funny, but over time it got corrected. I would not trust anything on Wikipedia about NZ politicians right now.

It seems Joyce isnt all wrong as Labour are hiding some true costs especially for some key government departments. Joyce has proven not to be a fool. May look like one..but isnt one :P

Huh?! That the man double-downed not simply on the general point that Labour's figures were supposedly dodgy but also on the actual dollar amount - despite numerous well-regarded (and some very much establishment/conservative economists) saying this was at least a significant overestimate - suggests he's a pig-headed fool who can't admit when he gets something wrong.

If he'd been less intemperate with his approach it may have been more effective. As it is, so much of the response has been on what he got 'wrong', which of course has led to the wider conversation as to whether he's a suitable person to hold the finance portfolio.

That said, he may well be of the mind that it's the initial claims that voters will have heard and will remember, and sadly he may be right...

Edit - Audrey Young's column in the NZH today is saying pretty much the same as I say above:

As National's campaign chairman for the past five elections, you'd think Steven Joyce would have been more careful in his political hit job.

By attacking Labour's fiscal plan in the way he has, by implying they had got their figures wrong, he has done damage to himself and to National's campaign.

He over-egged it by talking about an $11 billion fiscal hole.

That implied either an incompetent error or presenting deliberately misleading figures and it is no surprise that no one has agreed with him.

If he had been more temperate in his language and dealt with conservative scenarios instead of worst-case scenarios, he may have been taken more seriously.

The truth is usually more convincing than hyped up scare-stories. It was all timed for Prime Minister Bill English to make an impact on the second televised leaders' debate, just at the time when Jacinda Ardern could have been pressed harder on the blank cheque tax policy Labour is taking to the election.

Instead of politically exploiting the prospect of land tax, which Ardern did not rule out yesterday, Joyce has been back on the fiscals, having to defend his own reputation.

In the process, Labour has come up smelling like roses when parts of its plan deserve greater scrutiny.

It seems Joyce isnt all wrong as Labour are hiding some true costs especially for some key government departments. Joyce has proven not to be a fool. May look like one..but isnt one :P

Huh?! That the man double-downed not simply on the general point that Labour's figures were supposedly dodgy but also on the actual dollar amount - despite numerous well-regarded (and some very much establishment/conservative economists) saying this was at least a significant overestimate - suggests he's a pig-headed fool who can't admit when he gets something wrong.

If he'd been less intemperate with his approach it may have been more effective. As it is, so much of the response has been on what he got 'wrong', which of course has led to the wider conversation as to whether he's a suitable person to hold the finance portfolio.

That said, he may well be of the mind that it's the initial claims that voters will have heard and will remember, and sadly he may be right...

Yes, mud sticks. Its inconceivable that a party could make an 11b hole, forgetting about future costs of planned policies. Also inconceivable that a party would think that was the case, check and recheck. and conclude that was the case. Tactics I would say to stretch the economic credibility gap between the two leaders.

Let's just say that even before this week National campaign manager and finance spokesman Steven Joyce has form.

By comparison with his attempts in 2011 and 2014 the "hole" he claimed to have found in Labour's 2017 plan – $11.7b – was relatively small.

His motivation is as clear as crystal: feed the view Labour is incompetent and that National is the only trusted steward of the nation's books.

Now, if, once Labour's accounting practice had become clear, he had dropped that and hammered his other line – that Labour had left itself an incredibly small amount of remaining new spending to navigate the rest of its term – he might have had the financial world nodding in agreement.

Several economists have indeed made that point.

If he had said that given Labour's form, and its need to leave cash aside for potential coalition partners, he did not think they had a hope in hell of achieving that, then that would be a fair political debate.

But by sticking to his $11.7b number, including his provision for debt-servicing costs on imaginary extra debt, he went beyond over-egging his claim. He clearly believes that the "mud sticks" approach is better than the alternative – "partial backdown in the face of the evidence".

Its also very conceivable that National may need to cater for coalition demands, if Peters still holds the last card.

What has been a very interesting time is now getting a little grubby. . I feel Nats have a clear edge, the JA effect will diminish after its early ride, this could bite National, if Labs play the dirty tactics card. Lots more to unfold